Proof of Photomanipulation

can someone simply point out WHAT white van in WHAT photo out of the three or four white vans i see in some photos? Preferably a parked one? Moving targets don't count.
 
A W Smith said:
can someone simply point out WHAT white van in WHAT photo out of the three or four white vans i see in some photos? Preferably a parked one? Moving targets don't count.
Click to expand...

Go to http://www.thepentacon.com/Topic7.htm and scroll down to the photo labelled DSC_0412. The van he's talking about is to the left of the overhead sign, and its back end is obscured by the tree on the right hand end of the bridge. He thinks this means that the cab, which is obscured by the overhead sign upright (Christ only knows where Mobertermy thinks it ought to be, but that's where it damned well is) must be in the same place as the van, even though the van is to the left of TA4 (which Mobertermy thinks is TA3, as usual).

I don't get paid enough for this.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
Go to http://www.thepentacon.com/Topic7.htm and scroll down to the photo labelled DSC_0412. The van he's talking about is to the left of the overhead sign, and its back end is obscured by the tree on the right hand end of the bridge. He thinks this means that the cab, which is obscured by the overhead sign upright (Christ only knows where Mobertermy thinks it ought to be, but that's where it damned well is) must be in the same place as the van, even though the van is to the left of TA4 (which Mobertermy thinks is TA3, as usual).

I don't get paid enough for this.

Dave
Click to expand...

It's okay. We're going to White Castle later.
 
Dave Rogers said:
Go to http://www.thepentacon.com/Topic7.htm and scroll down to the photo labelled DSC_0412. The van he's talking about is to the left of the overhead sign, and its back end is obscured by the tree on the right hand end of the bridge. He thinks this means that the cab, which is obscured by the overhead sign upright (Christ only knows where Mobertermy thinks it ought to be, but that's where it damned well is) must be in the same place as the van, even though the van is to the left of TA4 (which Mobertermy thinks is TA3, as usual).

I don't get paid enough for this.

Dave
Click to expand...
good grief that's an ambulance! and traffic is still moving! And if it were where the yellow star was it would be floating in the air.

ambulance.jpg
 
Last edited:
Oystein said:
Here is a crop of "Photo #1 (with labels)"

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/368864d2f17dc12fa0.jpg[/qimg]

In the red circle, we see a shadow on the pavement.
I submit it is cast by the overhead sign.
The sun, shining from south-east on that morning, was close to being aligned with that sign, so we can expect the shadow to be pretty close to it on the ground.

And look what the shadow is next to? The traffic arm labelled "TA1" - but the arm next to the overhead is TA2!
So yet another indication that Mobertermy mislabelled the TAs!
Click to expand...

100% correct. You can see TA1 very clearly in this wide shot taken from the same vantage point at
http://www.thepentacon.com/Topic7.htm

Scroll to picture:
DSC_0418

btw, the shot you referred to is not just a cropped version of 0418 - the white-shirt guy is facing a different direction.
 
A W Smith said:
good grief that's an ambulance! and traffic is still moving!
Click to expand...

Yes, but it still has an instantaneous location. And, based on a reasonable sight line, that appears to be on the bridge or possibly off it to the north.

A W Smith said:
And if it were where the yellow star was it would be floating in the air.
Click to expand...

Yes, it would be just behind the overhead sign upright, where the cab is really.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
Go to http://www.thepentacon.com/Topic7.htm and scroll down to the photo labelled DSC_0412. The van he's talking about is to the left of the overhead sign, and its back end is obscured by the tree on the right hand end of the bridge. He thinks this means that the cab, which is obscured by the overhead sign upright (Christ only knows where Mobertermy thinks it ought to be, but that's where it damned well is) must be in the same place as the van, even though the van is to the left of TA4 (which Mobertermy thinks is TA3, as usual).

I don't get paid enough for this.

Dave
Click to expand...


I see at least two more white vans in that shot and I think its safe to bet that none of them are where he thinks they are. Its clear to me that it is as you say, most likely in the farthermost southbound lane at the far end of the bridge. quite why anyone should care where it is...................
 
Just an aside, I have no idea what Mobertermy's point really is, since looking thru the shots on that website Lloyde's cab is in the same position.

It is variously visible or obscured depending on where the photo was taken from.

Talk about much ado about nothing!!

Seriously Moby, I think you have an inability to conceive 3D spaces. You're terrible at doing photo analysis. Please drop it and remove your PPT before you pollute the internet further.
 
Dave Rogers said:
Yes, but it still has an instantaneous location. And, based on a reasonable sight line, that appears to be on the bridge or possibly off it to the north.



Yes, it would be just behind the overhead sign upright, where the cab is really.

Dave
Click to expand...
you can see that the ambulance is hugging the divider because the sun is reflecting off the east side of it and onto the divider. its on the bridge probably mid span or further north, I do not see a gate alongside it though.
 
Mobertermy said:
The yellow star is where the van would be.

Should a german really be using a yellow star to mark anything?
Click to expand...

Can you back up your claim? Please draw a line of sight!


(I realized the odd choice when I wrote the description. When I did the drawing, I thought a star would be a good locator, and yellow a nice visible colour. My star has five points, not six, so I think I am safe ;))
 
Childlike Empress said:
You are the only one saying he is an agent. Neighter CIT nor I do.

I delivered you a logical explanation. If you want to discuss this further, you'll have to first regain credibility by retracting your now excessively overdebunked presentation.
Click to expand...

You overlooked that for your explanation to be "logical" it might have to account for the jet full of passengers that crashed into the Pentagon that day, etc. Removing the context of that, then well, ok.
 
Last edited:
Childlike Empress said:
You are the only one saying he is an agent. Neighter CIT nor I do.

I delivered you a logical explanation. If you want to discuss this further, you'll have to first regain credibility by retracting your now excessively overdebunked presentation.
Click to expand...

CIT accused him of being an accomplice. That leaves three options.

1) He is an agent whose job it was to sell the official flightpath
2) He is a regular citizen cab driver and they paid him some to say he was on the bridge (to sell the official flightpath).
3) They coerced him. In other words told him that if he didn't say he was on the official flight path there would be negative repurcussions.

So which one do you choose Childish Empress?
 
Oystein said:
Can you back up your claim? Please draw a line of sight!


(I realized the odd choice when I wrote the description. When I did the drawing, I thought a star would be a good locator, and yellow a nice visible colour. My star has five points, not six, so I think I am safe ;))
Click to expand...

Ich meinte es nicht im ernst;)
 
Mobertermy said:
CIT accused him of being an accomplice. That leaves three options.

1) He is an agent whose job it was to sell the official flightpath
2) He is a regular citizen cab driver and they paid him some to say he was on the bridge (to sell the official flightpath).
3) They coerced him. In other words told him that if he didn't say he was on the official flight path there would be negative repurcussions.

So which one do you choose Childish Empress?
Click to expand...
Why do you keep forgetting the possibility he was mistaken?
 
carlitos said:
I'll take "human memory is fallible" for $100, Alex.

and CIT are nuts.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know what you guys think, and your opinion is completely logical (even though I disagree with it). It's the CITers that can't provide a logical explanation of their position.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom